Pre-War vs Post-war.

With the top 10 lists being limited to post-WWII players (fair enough), I just thought it would be a bit of fun to compare the best of pre-war players with their post war counterparts. Of course, we can only go on reputation and what has been said/written about such players (although that is also true of many post-war players), but it should be possible to come up with a definitive XI.
In the case of players who played in both eras I've taken the era in which players played the bulk of their career.
So my pre-war XI would be:

Jack Hobbs
Herbert Sutcliffe
Wally Hammond
Don Bradman(c)
George Headley
Stan McCabe
Les Ames(wk)
Maurice Tate
Hedley Verity
Sidney Barnes
Bill O'Reilly

And my post-war XI:

Len Hutton
Sunil Gavaskar
Viv Richards
Sachin Tendulkar
Ken Barrington
Gary Sobers
Imran Khan(c)
Alan Knott(wk)
Malcolm Marshall
Shane Warne
Glenn McGrath

Perhaps surprisingly, despite the far greater choice of players available to the post-war team, I don't think the difference between the two sides is that vast. Admittedly the pre-war XI is a little light on pace bowling, but Barnes and Tate sharing the new ball, with Hammond and McCabe to operate as support seamers + O'Reilly and Verity is a pretty formidable attack.
Anyway, who would be in your teams, which side would win, and by how much?

If you want quick bowlers from pre-war, how about Fred Spofforth? Averaged 18 in test cricket and under 15 in first class (over 800 wickets). Or more controversially Harold Larwood, a very fine fast bowler even if perhaps better remembered for his role in the infamous bodyline series.

Other guys who deserve a shout pre-war would include Bert Oldfield who would rival Ames for the keeper's spot, and Charlie Grimmett who would rival Verity for the second spinner's spot. W.G. Grace deserves a shout too, but I think your batting is spot on.

My teams:

Suttcliffe
Hobbs
Bradman (capt.)
Hammond
McCabe
Headley
Oldfield (wk)
Verity/Larwood (depending on the pitch)
Spofforth
O'Reilly
Barnes

Gavaskar
B. Richards
Viv Richards
Tendulkar
Barrington
Sobers
Knott
Wasim Akram
Warne (capt.)
Garner
McGrath

Looks pretty close doesn't it?

EDIT: despite Bradman's excellent post-war record have included him in the pre-war team as that's when he played most of his matches (about three quarters of them roughly). Have added captains, Bradman the outstanding choice for the pre-war side, and have given the post-war captaincy to Warne, who I think would have made an absolutely brilliant captain.

Hoggy - fine post. I'll give it some thought, although I'll find it tricky as I don't have much of a knowledge pre-war.

Meanwhile, can I ask a couple of questions. The first is for anyone whilst the second is for Hoggy.

1. How does Bradman's career post-war compare to that pre-war? Not nearly so well, I'm sure, but does anyone have stats/averages for these two periods?

2. There are several test captains in your post-war XI. Any particular reasons for giving the captaincy to Imran Khan?

1. Bradman scored 1903 runs post-war in 18 completed innings, at an average of 105.72. This is helped by a prolific home series against India (715 runs at 178.75) but he did pretty well in both Ashes series too (averages of 97.14 and 72.57), so his post-war record aint too shabby either...

Guildford
I'll answer both questions, if I may.
Post war Bradman scored 1900 runs in 15 matches at an average of 105. As for Imran, his captaincy always impressed me, but I'd have no qualms about Hutton being skipper ahead of him.

Good to see Gavaskar and Tendulkar's name in there. I could/might go for Steve Waugh as captain if Imran needs to be replaced and Warne with Kumble.

what's wrong with Imran? I don't have him in my team, but have no qualms about seeing him there. And I hope you weren't serious about replacing Warne with Kumble...

Cheers, Mad and Hoggy.

Bradman's brilliance and stand out over all career record always overwhelm me and I tend to simply accept him as the dedicated genius he was. I've never properly analysed his stats. Surprised and once more incredibly impressed by his post war runs and average. Had assumed there would have been a slight falling off in those later years, suppose that applies only to mere mortals!

Imran generally read the game and players well. Probably the best pick as captain, agreed.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:what's wrong with Imran? I don't have him in my team, but have no qualms about seeing him there. And I hope you weren't serious about replacing Warne with Kumble...

MFC nothing wrong with Imran, I proposed Steve/Kumble as replacements.

my pre war side would be the same hoggy

Jack Hobbs
Herbert Sutcliffe
Wally Hammond
Don Bradman(c)
George Headley
Stan McCabe
Les Ames(wk)
Maurice Tate
Hedley Verity
Sidney Barnes
Bill O'Reilly

however my post war side would be:

Len Hutton
Sunil Gavaskar
Viv Richards
Sachin Tendulkar
Rahul Dravid
Ricky Ponting
Adam Gilchrist (WK)
Malcolm Marshall
Shane Warne
Wasim Akram
Muttiah Muralithrian

Pre-War

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Bradman
Hammond
Headley
Paynter
Ames
Verity
Larwood
Barnes
O'Reilly

Post War

Hutton
Gavasker
V Richards
Lara
Tendulkar
Sobers
Gilchrist
Akram
Marshall
Murali
McGrath

So who would win, do you reckon?
I reckon the post-war team, but it'd be close.
If the pitch were a Melbourne sticky though, I'd back the pre-warers.

My knowledge of pre war isn't great but i'd go with something along the lines of mfc's team i think.

post war;

Gavaskar
Hutton
Viv
Kallis
Lara
Sobers
Gilchrist
Warne
Ambrose
Marshall
McGrath/Murali

Just a general question to anyone, as I am fully ready to admit, I don't have much knowledge of the pre war ear, so would anyone who has a greater knowledge than me say there was much difference is the standard of play back then to there is now?

Would Bradman still have averaged 99.94 if he was playing in the year 2000? It's not a slight against him, as I suspect his average would still dwarf everyone elses but would it be quite as high? And with regards to the bowlers, did they have the ability to reverse swing the ball or was that an invention of Akram and Waqar and did the spinners have the range of tricks we see nowadays like the googly, flipper and top spinner? And how would two polar opposite players like Cook and Sehwag fare if they were dropped into the 1920's? Well, or not.

I am genuinely interested to know as my knowledge of that era is limited to put it mildly! Cheers guys.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:So who would win, do you reckon?
I reckon the post-war team, but it'd be close.
If the pitch were a Melbourne sticky though, I'd back the pre-warers.

I'm predicting a high scoring draw with those batting line ups.

JDizzle

I reckon it's almost impossible to say whether Bradman (or other batsmen of his era) would average the same today as they did then. However, it is possible to list the advantages and disadvantages that they would have in comparison to todays batsmen (and visa versa)

Disadvantages:

Uncovered wickets
Rubbish bats
Lack of protection
Longer boundaries
Longer domestic seasons
Travel for tours
Less fitness

Advantages:
Poorer fielders
Old LBW Law
Bowler less fit, possibly slightly less quick (in general)
Less constant high pressure cricket
Possibly slightly less variety in spin bowling (though only slightly)
No need to adapt to demands of ODIs T/20is

Personally I reckon that these advantages/disadvantages would more or less even themselves out and that batsmen of the past would, more or less, average now what they did then. I think the same would probably be true the other way as well, although I do think it would be a bit more difficult for today's players to adjust to conditions in the 20s and 30s than the other way round.

Stella wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:So who would win, do you reckon?
I reckon the post-war team, but it'd be close.
If the pitch were a Melbourne sticky though, I'd back the pre-warers.

I'm predicting a high scoring draw with those batting line ups.

Maybe it'll have to be played on a Melbourne sticky, to give the bowlers a chance.
Sorry post-war team

JD

I think greats would be greats in any era, would Bradman have averaged the same remarkable 99.94? Possibly not, then again he may have averaged more, we can't know. IMO he would have succeeded to a similar extent in any era. I think reverse swing is a fairly modern technique, but by all accounts someone like O'Reilly had plenty of variations (googly, top-spinner etc.) and the ball which bowled Bradman in his final test innings is generally recognised as a googly (delivered by Eric Hollies).

One thing hoggy leaves out in his pros and cons is the amount of analysis of the opposition that goes into the preparation of matches these days. As such if a batsman has a weakness it tends to get spotted fairly quickly, but then again, bowlers get analysed too, so become easier to pick etc. Works both ways I guess, the challenges are just different. Quality of bats have improved massively too.

My verdict is that Bradman would have adapted perfectly well to the different challenges of the modern game, but we'll never really know for sure...

Fair points Hoggy, I suppose aswell with cricket, unlike other sports, Test tactics haven't evolved much over time. I mean, the scoring rates are quicker these days in tests but that is about the only difference there is with techniques staying very similar since the Bradman era. Also, in other sports physicality can play a major part (rugby, football etc.) but bulking up and getting fitter in cricket only has a slight benefit.

Bowling has probably changed more than batting I would think, with reverse swing and variations of spinners being the main difference. So modern day spinners might have some success in the early eras but the different LBW laws might dampen them instead. Swings and roundabouts.



MFC, I agree that Bradman would be a great in any era and I also agree with you that it is hard to tell how great he would be in this era, but he would definitely stand out. As for O Reilly, it's interesting that he had those variations and maybe the difference in "mystery balls" wasn't so much. And I for one would love to see Akram play against Bradman and Barrington, bowling 90mph reverse swing and seeing that contest. It would be superb.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:JD

I think greats would be greats in any era, would Bradman have averaged the same remarkable 99.94? Possibly not, then again he may have averaged more, we can't know. IMO he would have succeeded to a similar extent in any era. I think reverse swing is a fairly modern technique, but by all accounts someone like O'Reilly had plenty of variations (googly, top-spinner etc.) and the ball which bowled Bradman in his final test innings is generally recognised as a googly (delivered by Eric Hollies).

Certainly Googlies (invented by Bernard Bosenquet in the 1880s), and Flippers (invented by Clarrie Grimmett in the 1920s). Barnes bowled both off and leg spin from the front of his hand, so that would have to have been something like a Doosra and he (along with others) also bowled top-spinners.

Hoggy - that's a very thorough listing of advantages and disadvantages applying to Bradman and those of his generation as opposed to today.

I wouldn't make too much of it but the one other advantage I can think of enjoyed by earlier batsmen is the total absence then of decisions being made by the third umpire with the aid of technology. Whilst sometimes in the past a 'bad' decision would inevitably have gone against the batsman, I suspect that generally the old adage of 'if in doubt, not out' would have been applied by the on field umpires.

JDizzle wrote: As for O Reilly, it's interesting that he had those variations and maybe the difference in "mystery balls" wasn't so much.

Probably.There's a great story about Grimmett and 'mystery deliveries' though. Wheen he first invented the Flipper, a major problem was that when he bowled it the fingers on his bowling hand clicked together making an audible sound and telling the batsman when he bowled it. This soon got around the circuit and, one day, Grimmett was getting more and more frustrated as everytime he bowled the Fipper the batsman knew what was coming and played a perfect defensive shot. So when he came on to bowl again, he tossed one up and the batsman heard the telltale snap of fingers, played for the Flipper but found instead that Grimmett had bowled a leg-break which took the edge of the bat and was caught at slip. The batsman walked off astounded and the Umpire turned to Grimmett and said "You sly Devil. When you bowled that you snapped the fingers on your other hand didn't you?". Grimmett simply smiled in reply.

guildfordbat wrote:Hoggy - that's a very thorough listing of advantages and disadvantages applying to Bradman and those of his generation as opposed to today.

I wouldn't make too much of it but the one other advantage I can think of enjoyed by earlier batsmen is the total absence then of decisions being made by the third umpire with the aid of technology. Whilst sometimes in the past a 'bad' decision would inevitably have gone against the batsman, I suspect that generally the old adage of 'if in doubt, not out' would have been applied by the on field umpires.

Yep that is something that has been to the disadvantage of batsmen in the last 5 years or so. Maybe if Bradman were around today, the ACB would be anti-URDS.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:With the top 10 lists being limited to post-WWII players (fair enough), I just thought it would be a bit of fun to compare the best of pre-war players with their post war counterparts. Of course, we can only go on reputation and what has been said/written about such players (although that is also true of many post-war players), but it should be possible to come up with a definitive XI.
In the case of players who played in both eras I've taken the era in which players played the bulk of their career.
So my pre-war XI would be:

Jack Hobbs
Herbert Sutcliffe
Wally Hammond
Don Bradman(c)
George Headley
Stan McCabe
Les Ames(wk)
Maurice Tate
Hedley Verity
Sidney Barnes
Bill O'Reilly

And my post-war XI:

Len Hutton
Sunil Gavaskar
Viv Richards
Sachin Tendulkar
Ken Barrington
Gary Sobers
Imran Khan(c)
Alan Knott(wk)
Malcolm Marshall
Shane Warne
Glenn McGrath

Perhaps surprisingly, despite the far greater choice of players available to the post-war team, I don't think the difference between the two sides is that vast. Admittedly the pre-war XI is a little light on pace bowling, but Barnes and Tate sharing the new ball, with Hammond and McCabe to operate as support seamers + O'Reilly and Verity is a pretty formidable attack.
Anyway, who would be in your teams, which side would win, and by how much?

Hoggy - your pre-war team is excellent. I would though like to have a couple of others at least on stand by.

Clarrie Grimmett - certainly if the wicket looks like it'll take spin.

Eddie Paynter - for not just his batting but his fighting qualities. I read today about him leaving his hospital bed where he was confined mid test with tonsilitis to lead a successful rearguard action (I'm always a sucker for stories like that! )

I've no problems either with the post-war XI although would make a few changes due to personal preference. In my team Gavaskar, Barrington, Imran, Knott and McGrath would be replaced respectively by Barry Richards, Mike Procter, Richie Benaud (who skippers), Adam Gilchrist and Michael Holding. However, I'm really doing no more than replace with one genius with another!

I'm sorry, but as Grace was as far ahead of his contemporaries as Bradman was, relatively speaking (until he became an old man anyway), any team without him is a bit of a joke and that goes for any all-time team, so to miss him out of a prewar side must be the biggest joke ever.

ReallyReal - by its very nature, a cricket forum and particularly a thread like this will comprise different posters with different opinions.

I have no problem with that. In fact, I welcome it.

However, the tone of your post in response to a very interesting article is both rude and unpleasant (contrast with how Mad for Chelsea referred to Grace in his post). In my eyes, that is unnecessary and unwelcome.

Reallyreal
I'm usually a keen advocate of Grace myself, and I'd have no problem bringing him into the team for McCabe.
The reason I left him out initially was that he was usually an opening batsman, not a middle-order player, and I was loathe to split up the greatest test opening partnership of all-time but, as you say, Grace was so far ahead of his contemporaries, and such a talented batsman, that I'm sure he could have batted lower down the order.
Picking him in his prime would also give the team a decent back-up bowling option as well.

On the Grace issue, yes Grace was well ahead of his time as a cricketer, but Hobbs and Sutcliffe were probably the greatest opening partnershi of all time (averaged 87-odd as an opening pair I think) so it felt a shame to split them up, hence I didn't.

There's no way you can leave Hobbs out of a world XI in my mind, so his inclusion in the pre-war team is automatic. However, if you look at their records, they're very similar, and Sutcliffe actually has the better average (though Hobbs has that remarkable record of first class centuries, Sutcliffe knocked over 150 of them).

I feel Sutcliffe is too often over-looked (forgotten?) when it comes to discussions of great openers, as he should and deserves to be compared with the very best. As guildford says, it's all about opinions, and I'd have no problems with Grace being included in a pre-war or even all-time XI, but for me the success of Hobbs and Sutcliffe as an opening pair clinches it.

guildfordbat wrote:ReallyReal - by its very nature, a cricket forum and particularly a thread like this will comprise different posters with different opinions.

I have no problem with that. In fact, I welcome it.

However, the tone of your post in response to a very interesting article is both rude and unpleasant (contrast with how Mad for Chelsea referred to Grace in his post). In my eyes, that is unnecessary and unwelcome.

If my post was rude, unnecessary and unwelcome, I'm sorry, though I don't see it that way at all and I think you're going a little over the top yourself in your response.
I was clearly forceful in my opinion, but that's simply because I do see it as a complete joke to miss out a man so far ahead of his peers that a it seems to be a deliberate omission rather that anything subjective, would anyone omit Bradman from any teams like this?

ReallyReal - your comments re Grace do hold water and are now better put and explained. Apology accepted.

This is a great thread.

The amount of test cricket played nowadays is both an advantage and a disadvantage. It is entirely possible Bradman would have averaged more. We shall never know.

My sides:
Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Bradman
Hammond
Headley
W.G. Grace (fantastic all-rounder)
Oldfield (wkt)
Grimmett
O'Reilly
Barnes
Spofforth

Comments: like others I can't split up the greatest ever opening partnership. Grimmett just takes the 2nd spinner's slot. WG Grace provides the world class all-rounder.

Post-war:
Gavaskar
B. Richards
G. Chappell
Tendulkar
V. Richards
Sobers
Knott (wkt)
Wasim Akram
Warne
Holding
Ambrose

Comments:
Although I believe Gilchrist is the best batsman-keeper of all time, Knott's keeping wins him the slot due to the fact that I believe the team has enough runs, and a few genius dismissals wouldn't go amiss. Plus I'd love watching Knott keep to Warne. Ambrose just ahead of McGrath.

Who would win? Probably the post-war, just, mainly because I believe Shane Warne would be the difference. With typically less spinners than seamers, the potential for differential in spin is IMO higher than for other aspects (where differentials tend to average out if that makes sense). Also Bradman had some trouble against spin, so maybe Warne would get him out before he reached 100 in one of the innings?

On the other hand we shouldn't be surprised the sides are closely matched. Whilst there are probably more very good to great players post-war (simply because there have been more players) the best of the best of the best (that is, the one in a generation player) will roughly be of the same standard.

I think Mike makes a great point about why the sides are so closely matched. For instance, you could probably easily make a squad of 15 or so for the pre-war team (Mike's team + McCabe, Paynter, Larwood, Verity and Ames - OK that's 16 but you get the point) whereas if we were picking a post-war touring squad I think there'd be more disagreements.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

JDizzle wrote: As for O Reilly, it's interesting that he had those variations and maybe the difference in "mystery balls" wasn't so much.

Probably.There's a great story about Grimmett and 'mystery deliveries' though. Wheen he first invented the Flipper, a major problem was that when he bowled it the fingers on his bowling hand clicked together making an audible sound and telling the batsman when he bowled it. This soon got around the circuit and, one day, Grimmett was getting more and more frustrated as everytime he bowled the Fipper the batsman knew what was coming and played a perfect defensive shot. So when he came on to bowl again, he tossed one up and the batsman heard the telltale snap of fingers, played for the Flipper but found instead that Grimmett had bowled a leg-break which took the edge of the bat and was caught at slip. The batsman walked off astounded and the Umpire turned to Grimmett and said "You sly Devil. When you bowled that you snapped the fingers on your other hand didn't you?". Grimmett simply smiled in reply.

JUst catching up with this thread, that's a tremendous story.

Very difficult to overlook any of the following for the pre-war side - Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Bradman, Hammond and Headley. Most at the time reckoned Barnes was unbelievably good. What about Trumper? His figures were not as impressive as some, but by all accounts he was fantastic.
As a pleasing player, Woolley might get in - although not statistically. Is there a case for Trueman in the post-war team? I'd certainly have Lara in the batting but then it's a tricky choice of who to leave out. But for the Saffers exile, I'm sure Greame Pollock would have been considered one of the best Test batsman of all time. All good fun.